Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Based on recent trends, how do you think it will play out?
I think a slow creep towards more of a European-style Social Democracy but with a US twist. Personally, I think it will be a very dialed back Medicaid and programs targeted at working class families. Child care via a much longer school day and school year with pre-school at a younger age so both parents can work. I think there will always be a 5 year cap on cash welfare handouts.
I think that all the big money from corporate and 0.01%er interests will slow it down for a while. We'll continue to have crazy Tea Party flat tax and consumption tax talk that shifts all the tax burden onto the middle class and working class. They'll continue to use nutty fringe issues like abortion rights and gun control to get people to vote against their economic interest. At some point, that kind of position is going to be completely slaughtered in general elections.
I think a slow creep towards more of a European-style Social Democracy but with a US twist.
The Europeans haven't yet experienced tech unemployment and neither have we. They basically just have nicer social benefits and higher taxes. It's a very different story when a large and growing % of the population becomes fundamentally unemployable. Granted the Euros are much better prepared for it than we are. They might manage the transition without much fuss.
I don't think we will see "dialed back" welfare. Something needs to be in place to support the unemployable at the poverty level at least. Else there will be too many unhappy able bodied homeless.
One fallacy that keeps getting repeated in such discussions, is the fallacy that you need certain numbers of consumers to support the economy, and therefore the unemployable need some kind of income support to avoid a disaster of the whole economy. The fallacy uses logic such as: if most consumers have no money, who will buy the goods produced by the robots? The robots won't, because they don't need those goods.
One answer to that fallacy is that the kind of economy a society of robots would have, would be different, because robots would have different needs than humans have. One of the biggest expenditures of an intelligent autonomous robot would be for maintenance and improvements. Add more power to its brain, add more strength to its arms, give it better batteries and/or other energy sources, etc. In a society of intelligent robots, the economy would be huge, just from providing those goods and services robots would need for maintaining and improving themselves.
Another answer to the same fallacy, if the robots are owned by the 1%, and are slaves to them, the 1% could be the consumers who consume all the goods of the whole economy, while the 99% starve in the gutters. One major item of consumption might be weapons, such as bodyguard robots, to defend the 1% from the 99%.
There is no limit to how much anyone can consume. Therefore, the whole idea that the economy needs the 99% to be consumers, is nothing but a fallacy. The economy will do fine, and even boom, while the 99% starve in the gutters and deserts.
Should this be construed as good news or bad news? It depends on your point of view. If you're one of the 1%, it will be paradise. All you have to do is make sure you're one of the 1%, not one of the 99%. So start working towards that goal, and stop worrying about the end of the world.
If we provide income support and/or other such welfare for the 99%, it will only be because of our hearts are bleeding, not because the economy would benefit from any such income support.
And of course the fallacy that the peasants will revolt and therefore need welfare, is even easier to refute. The peasants won't be able to revolt, because the robots will round them up and corral them.
One fallacy that keeps getting repeated in such discussions, is the fallacy that you need certain numbers of consumers to support the economy, and therefore the unemployable need some kind of income support to avoid a disaster of the whole economy. The fallacy uses logic such as: if most consumers have no money, who will buy the goods produced by the robots? The robots won't, because they don't need those goods.
One answer to that fallacy is that the kind of economy a society of robots would have, would be different, because robots would have different needs than humans have. One of the biggest expenditures of an intelligent autonomous robot would be for maintenance and improvements. Add more power to its brain, add more strength to its arms, give it better batteries and/or other energy sources, etc. In a society of intelligent robots, the economy would be huge, just from providing those goods and services robots would need for maintaining and improving themselves.
Another answer to the same fallacy, if the robots are owned by the 1%, and are slaves to them, the 1% could be the consumers who consume all the goods of the whole economy, while the 99% starve in the gutters. One major item of consumption might be weapons, such as bodyguard robots, to defend the 1% from the 99%.
There is no limit to how much anyone can consume. Therefore, the whole idea that the economy needs the 99% to be consumers, is nothing but a fallacy. The economy will do fine, and even boom, while the 99% starve in the gutters and deserts.
Should this be construed as good news or bad news? It depends on your point of view. If you're one of the 1%, it will be paradise. All you have to do is make sure you're one of the 1%, not one of the 99%. So start working towards that goal, and stop worrying about the end of the world.
If we provide income support and/or other such welfare for the 99%, it will only be because of our hearts are bleeding, not because the economy would benefit from any such income support.
And of course the fallacy that the peasants will revolt and therefore need welfare, is even easier to refute. The peasants won't be able to revolt, because the robots will round them up and corral them.
I doubt the top 20% would starve. The 80% will though.
I don't think we will see "dialed back" welfare. Something needs to be in place to support the unemployable at the poverty level at least. Else there will be too many unhappy able bodied homeless.
How many is too many? The more there are, the more jobs there will be for cops to control them. Even if robots weren't a factor, unemployed unhappy able bodied people can be controlled by hiring a lot of them to police the rest of them. Peasant revolts only succeed when the aristocrats are exceedingly stupid, such as saying "let them eat cake" while not bothering to spend enough on defense from them. Welfare hardly prevents peasant revolts. When inner city ghettos have riots, how many of the rioters are on welfare?
The only real reason to support the unemployable, at poverty levels or other levels, is because the 1% are bleeding hearts. Or so you should hope.
How many is too many? The more there are, the more jobs there will be for cops to control them. Even if robots weren't a factor, unemployed unhappy able bodied people can be controlled by hiring a lot of them to police the rest of them.
The only real reason to support the unemployable, at poverty levels or other levels, is because the 1% are bleeding hearts. Or so you should hope.
The issue is that they will still need the support of the masses for a long time. How many decades yet? If you just let people fall off a cliff, the rest of the population will notice that they are getting slowly shoved to the edge as well, and you'll have chaos and riots. More importantly you'd give the masses a unifying cause. The odds are that they'd turn their attention to the .01% and attempt to force their own agenda.
It is much more sensible to force the remaining middle class workforce to pay for the welfare of the unemployed. This keeps the public pitted against each other. The transition will happen slowly, over 50-60 years (maybe a bit more). The unemployed won't have it so bad. Like I said earlier, tech will make it possible for people to have very interesting lives with minimal resource consumption. And the employed for the most part will fantasize that they are special and it won't happen to them, until it's is too late.
I'm sure the Deep Learning systems are working on the issue right now, how best to manipulate the masses for the shift from consumer-capitalism to a mechanized feudal aristocracy.
The Europeans haven't yet experienced tech unemployment and neither have we. They basically just have nicer social benefits and higher taxes. It's a very different story when a large and growing % of the population becomes fundamentally unemployable. Granted the Euros are much better prepared for it than we are. They might manage the transition without much fuss.
I don't think we will see "dialed back" welfare. Something needs to be in place to support the unemployable at the poverty level at least. Else there will be too many unhappy able bodied homeless.
Europeans haven't experienced disastrous trade deals like NAFTA!!
Besides they are patriotic.
For instance European airlines are almost ideologically buying Airbus
Hell if it wasn't for the EU Airbus wouldn't even exist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Based on recent trends, how do you think it will play out?
